LH -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-002189

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

30 October 2024

Before:

Michael Ford KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
LH

-v-

London Borough of Hounslow

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the acknowledgement(s) of service filed by the Defendant and the Claimant’s reply thereto

ORDER by the Michael Ford KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted on ground 1.
  2. The application is refused on ground 2 because the Claimant no longer seeks permission or relief in respect of that ground.
  3. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4), in any report of these proceedings the Claimant shall be referred to as “LH” and her children as “L” and “R”. There shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or of her children, nor of any particulars liable to lead to their identification.
  4. Within seven days of the date of service of this Order, the Claimant’s solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redated to protect the identity of the Claimant and her children in accordance with paragraph (3) above.
  5. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the relevant document has been anonymised and/or redacted so as to remove references which are liable to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her children.
  6. In relation to the costs of ground 2, within 14 days of the date of this order the Claimant shall file with the Court and serve on the Defendant brief submissions on the costs order which the Claimant contends should be made. The Defendant may, within 14 days of the date on which the Claimant serves submissions, file and serve brief submissions in response. The Claimant may, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant’s response is served, file and serve brief submissions in reply.
  7. The judicial review application is to be listed for 4 hour(s); the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.

Case Management Directions

  1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
  2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.
  3. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 4 weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
  4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  5. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than [3] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  6. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration hearing may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.

Reasons

  1. I consider that ground 1 is properly arguable. The only reason given in the acknowledgement of service for resisting this ground is that the Claimant should have made an application to enforce a consent order made in an earlier judicial review (AC-2024-LON-000116), in which the Defendant agreed to review the Claimant’s housing needs. However, for the reasons set out in the Claimants’ reply to the summary grounds, it is arguable that the Claimant was right to issue fresh proceedings rather than seek to enforce the consent order.
  2. Ground 2 has now become academic because, in a decision dated 12 July 2024 (after the claim form was sealed), the Defendant accepts that the Claimant’s current accommodation is unsuitable. The Claimant in her reply makes clear she no longer seeks permission or relief in respect of this ground.
  3. The issue of costs under ground 2 remains to be determined. The order above provides for submissions to be served and filed in order to determine this question.
  4. The proceedings include evidence about the Claimant’s children, who are disabled, and medical and other sensitive information about them. An anonymity order was granted in the earlier judicial review and I consider that it is just to grant similar orders for anonymity departing from the principle of open justice.
  5. Although the statement of facts and grounds originally sought an expedited timetable, I have made no such order in light of the Defendant now accepting that the Claimant’s current property is not suitable for the needs of her household, with the result that the family have been given priority for a transfer to new property.